Late war German machinery.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Khan7 -> Late war German machinery.. (1/21/2002 3:40:00 AM)

Ok, here's an OoB question-- why is the JagdTiger faster than the Konigstiger?? How does this make sense?? From what I've read, the Konigstiger saw a great deal of use (despite the relatively small numbers produced), and the JagdTiger was a huge, lumbering, clumsy, breakdown-prone monster that saw little production and was not practical on the battlefield. So you have KonigsTigers wandering around on rouge missions taking out whole squadrons of Allied tanks, while the JagdTigers sit and don't do much. But now, with the JagdTiger not only FASTER, but now with a clearly superior gun, as evidently the designers had some sort of celestial revelation between previous versions and SPWAW and decided to give the 128mm not only better penetration but better accuracy and fire control (I don't know the reasons for the change), where it had previously been deficient, it would seem that we should have seen significant production of the JTiger while the KTiger sat around and did not much. So what's the deal? Why were these decisions made? I don't doubt that you guys have access to alot of data and records that I've never seen, but honestly, the current status of these OoBs makes no sense based on what knowledge I have picked up. Matt



asgrrr -> (1/21/2002 4:38:00 AM)

The Kingtiger was not much less breakdown prone. By the time the Jagdtiger entered service, experienced crew were scarce, and this contributed greatly to the poor mechanical performance of these vehicles. About the gunnery aspect, I see no obvious fault.



Tombstone -> (1/21/2002 5:13:00 AM)

Kingtiger was butt slow. Jagdtiger didn't have a turret, so it was lighter. A bigger gun though heavier can be easier accomodated, with less superstructure on a fixed firing position rather than a turret. It can move faster cause of the weight reduction. The 128mm gun, however, I agree that it may have been upped more than it should have. Especially in the accuracy and fire control. Jagdtiger was produced so little because it was super late in the war, it's not like 128mm tank guns grew on trees, and although the german's made dumb production decisions they weren't that stupid. Tomo



asgrrr -> (1/21/2002 6:13:00 AM)

Actually, the Jagdtiger was 2 tons heavier than the tank. Can't see why it should be faster.



Frank W. -> (1/22/2002 12:16:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
Actually, the Jagdtiger was 2 tons heavier than the tank. Can't see why it should be faster.
germans were stupid. they spent valuable resources to build over-heavy monsters.
to large,too heavy,too slow,too slow rate of
fire...... they should have build more of the panther G and hetzers. and 20mm vierling flak in LARGE numbers to deal with the enemy fighter bombers......



RichardTheFirst -> (1/22/2002 1:07:00 AM)

I'm not going to question about the OOB's because I haven't played enough with them in v7.0. What I question is the model itself in what regards the Tank Destroyers (and also the Assault Guns). If a TD is not a Tank due to its lack of turret (although american TD's do have a turret - I'm not talking about those) than you should expect it would be weaker than a tank in dealing with any enemy at close range, especially with fast moving vehicles, because its guns are facing the front. It takes longer to turn the entire vehicle than to turn just the turret. While turning the turret is up to the gunner, turning the entire vehicle is up to the driver and he cannot look in every direction - have to be told to turn by other members of the crew. What I've seen several times in this game is TD's in 1 hex op-fire turn the entire body of the tank to face the attacking enemy even when the attacker is moving very fast. One could see the same behavior in Halftracks for example. But here it could be more understandable as the halftrack is faster than a TD( Even so, in my opinion it should move the machine gun only, but OK it would imply new designs...). In conclusion - In my opinion, for turretless vehicles, op-fire at close ranges when the attacker comes from the sides or rear should be a lot restricted if not eliminated in the model. [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: RichardTheFirst ]



Frank W. -> (1/22/2002 2:59:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by RichardTheFirst:
In conclusion - In my opinion, for turretless vehicles, op-fire at close ranges when the attacker comes from the sides or rear should be a lot restricted if not eliminated in the model. [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: RichardTheFirst ]
yes. i think so,too.
noticed that several times with STUG´s.
or SU100 and stuff.
they should get a penality.
bit more realistic



Voriax -> (1/22/2002 3:47:00 AM)

Hello I disagree a bit about the turning rate. Tank turrets can take like 40-60 seconds for full turn, right? So even with tanks it's often faster to turn the tank with tracks to approximately right direction and then do the fine adjust by turning the turret. Likewise with assault guns. Their guns had about +/- 15 degree traverse so they relied to the above method when they had to change their aim large amounts quickly. Of course if you have a fast turret that turns full turn in 15 seconds or so then it's not necessary to turn the hull. But my point is that most tanks didn't point their gun to different direction any faster than turretless vehicles...one track forward and the other reverse and there you go...turn on the spot. Of course if you do it long enough you're gonna dig your tank in but...
Voriax



RichardTheFirst -> (1/22/2002 5:51:00 AM)

Voriax: Hmmmm, I understand what you mean, and you certainly have a point. But in tanks I would go more for part of the turn to be done by the hull and the other part by the turret. Lets say you need to turn your gun 90 degrees, maybe 45 degrees from the turret and 45 degrees from the hull would do it. If you know Close Combat I think it illustrates pretty well this movement in real time. Would be necessary an expert here however to have a more firm opinion on the rates. If we analyse that movement in detail we have to conclude then that a lot of hits on the tanks in a 1 hex distance combat would then be modelled wrong, for the tank would be turning his hull also and not only the turret when the enemy fires. Some hits now at the side hull would be really at the front, if you understand what I mean. Thinking even a bit more in it: the advantages of having a turret is to be able to fire in all directions while the vehicle is moving and to be able to make the vehicle fit let's say between 2 trees and also fire while is stopped. This means for the turretless TD: A) If stopped it's not as flexible as a tank because there are situations where it can't turn the hull, let's say if in the trees or between buildings. B) Let's say it is moving at 60 kilometers/hour (about 35 miles/hour) and receives unexpected fire. How can it stop, rotate all of his hull and fire all in the same turn? Complicated to analyse all of this but until a better opinion I mantain that the model allows too fast response from the TD when stopped and that perhaps he shouldn't be able to op-fire when moving fast and the fire comes from the sides or rear. [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: RichardTheFirst ]



lnp4668 -> (1/22/2002 6:38:00 AM)

Because a turn is 10 to 15 minutes long, it is possible for a TD to stop, turn, then fire. However, a moving TD receives high penalty when firing on the move. Exception to this is the American turret TD, which is more like a tank in this respect.



Ballan -> (1/22/2002 6:39:00 AM)

I disagree re the comment about the Germans being stupid with making heavy tanks. For example the Elephant is generally considered a failure at Kursk by many authors, in actual fact the kill loss ratio was 15 - 1 in favor of the Elephants. There are many instances of single German heavy AFVS thrashing massive numbers of allied tanks. One example being the retreat from Riga , one Kingtiger accounted for 35 T-34s in the one day. The one enduring memory of interviews with allied tankers is the sheer awe and fear of the German Tiger, and their comparision with their feeble Shermans. Many of the German heavys were destroyed by their own crews due to lack of recovery vehicles and lack of fuel.



Panzer Leo -> (1/22/2002 6:50:00 AM)

The assault guns do have an disadvantage that is partly accounting for what you described here. The rate of fire is always lower than that of a turret vehicle with the same gun. This should be enough, as I also believe the turning of the whole tank was a common practice for vehicles with a small turning radius. Probably a reason why Sherman based TDs had turrets, as the turning radius was awfully large.
The turret tanks also have the advantage of only turning the turret to a side target and keeping the strong front hull in the main enemy direction. This gives a better protection than always opposing the whole flank.



asgrrr -> (1/22/2002 7:48:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Ballan:
I disagree re the comment about the Germans being stupid with making heavy tanks.
There is hardly any question that late war tank procurement decisions of germany were flawed, if not ludicruos. What was the need of a super heavy assault mortar in 1945 for example? Or the way "mad scientists" like dr. Porsche were allowed to run wild with fantasies of land monitors and the like, while there was pressing need for design and manufacturing facilities for viable projects?
quote:

Originally posted by Ballan:
Many of the German heavys were destroyed by their own crews due to lack of recovery vehicles and lack of fuel.
The above is perhaps exactly the point: The production of heavy, imperfect, breakdown prone, fuel gusslers in place of reliable existing designs that still possessed superiority over their adversaries. That is how the heavies were often irrecoverably lost in action (being on the defensive), often for little or no gain. Combine this with the state of armor personnel, where crews of sufficient calibre to handle such monsters were increasingly scarce, and you can only compound the reliability problem.



Frank W. -> (1/22/2002 9:56:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
The above is perhaps exactly the point: The production of heavy, imperfect, breakdown prone, fuel gusslers in place of reliable existing designs that still possessed superiority over their adversaries. That is how the heavies were often irrecoverably lost in action (being on the defensive), often for little or no gain. Combine this with the state of armor personnel, where crews of sufficient calibre to handle such monsters were increasingly scarce, and you can only compound the reliability problem.
yes. excact. not to forget the really bad speed and manouverability (spelling?) of such heavy tanks in bad terrain....



lnp4668 -> (1/22/2002 10:08:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Frank W.:
germans were stupid. they spent valuable resources to build over-heavy monsters.
to large,too heavy,too slow,too slow rate of
fire...... they should have build more of the panther G and hetzers. and 20mm vierling flak in LARGE numbers to deal with the enemy fighter bombers......
It is overcompensation by the German High Command Freud would definitely have a field day with them.



panda124c -> (1/23/2002 1:56:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:
The assault guns do have an disadvantage that is partly accounting for what you described here. The rate of fire is always lower than that of a turret vehicle with the same gun. This should be enough, as I also believe the turning of the whole tank was a common practice for vehicles with a small turning radius. Probably a reason why Sherman based TDs had turrets, as the turning radius was awfully large.
The turret tanks also have the advantage of only turning the turret to a side target and keeping the strong front hull in the main enemy direction. This gives a better protection than always opposing the whole flank.

If you will look at the development of the Tank Destroyer in the German Army you note that it took two different directions the one you are talking about is the Jagdpanther, Elephant, and Jagdtiger, the other line of development resulted in the Hetzer, a small, fast (speed and turning) vehical with a large gun (75L48) this design was to overcome the short comings of earlier TD's, slow (speed and turning) which were derived from the Assualt Gun. The Assualt Gun was to be used in an advancing role using it's heavy front armor to protect it for harm. Note that the British solved the problem by mounting their 17 lb gun facing rearward in their TD. So the characteristics of a TD would vary widely depending which vehical is being modeled. Some would be slow turning others would be much quicker than even a tank using a combination of turning and turrent movement.



Khan7 -> (1/23/2002 12:54:00 PM)

The physics of simultaneous hull and turret movement would be kind of interesting. During the initial phase of hull turning, when there is positive accelleration, also moving the turret would be inefficient at best and likely impossible. Then there would be some opportunity during the constant velocity stage of turning (if one would exist). Still the best opportunity would be during the decelleration. Overall, I would imagine that the clunkiness, accelleration, etc., would make it a bit of a trick to get much of a speed advantage by using this method, though it would certainly be possible. As I doubt there would be much of a constant velocity phase, I would guess you'd wait for the decellaration phase to help that turret coast on over. Matt



swagman -> (1/24/2002 6:02:00 AM)

I remember reading that the KV-II turret mounting a 150mm howitzer was so heavy that it couldn't be turned if the tank was on any slope.



panda124c -> (1/24/2002 7:48:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by swagman:
I remember reading that the KV-II turret mounting a 150mm howitzer was so heavy that it couldn't be turned if the tank was on any slope.

The M8 Armored car had a turret lock because on a slope the turret would slowly turned so that the gun pointed downhill.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.328125